In the age of technological progress, there is no wonder West takes over East. Eastern and Southern ideologies are based on the “human-nature” principle, spiritual basis, customs, and traditions. From the moral and ethical point of view, this approach is more pure and human. However, to survive in today’s harsh business world, the one has to deny the basic ethical principles and change to the Western thinking.
In the case we were given, I would rather support Jane’s cynical view of the world rather than Sam’s naïve expectations.
To realize the significance of Western civilizations and its investments into the world’s overall development, it is crucial to understand the meaning of globalization. Globalization is no more than the movements of investments and businesses beyond local (national) markets abroad. This process leads to the general increase in the international communications between various markets. Probably, the debates around this issue could be avoided. But the cultural exchange and other social elements were also touched during the implementation of this phenomenon. And not all countries benefit.
Reasons to Support West
I am quite sure that Eastern and Southern civilizations so fiercely defended by Sam are still at the stage of “undeveloped” due to their refusal to accept the lifestyle of the Western world. It’s not about different intelligence level or laziness – it’s all about obeying the rules of the game where weak obey the powerful. Because of Eastern civilization’s blind faith and religion, they have already lost a lot of wars and half of their land along with populations.
I would explain my position from the consequentialist viewpoint. I judge the impact of globalization exceptionally by its consequences. The greatest good can be produced only when less developed nations inherit the habits and strategies of the developed world. Also, all parts of the world will benefit from sharing information. Modernization allows people from Europe to be aware what’s going on in Africa. Thus, some bad outcomes like diseases coming from there can be prevented.
As a follower of consequentialist theory, I don’t see any physical harm done to Asian or African undeveloped countries caused by West. After all, there is no way of creating a single religion or global ethics that will fit everybody. It is stated by communitarianism by Michael Walzer. Cross-border moral conflict exists not only because of Westernization. Since Ancient times, people from different parts of the world experienced conflicts because of their different outlook. Globalization has nothing to do with it. Vice versa, it brings positive results when accepted. For instance, Northern Africa whose population has already accepted the influence of the West is making serious economic progress while South Africa suffers from poverty.
After all, globalization can solve the issue of absolute poverty, which is living $1 per day.
My belief is based on a couple of persuasive examples and credible statistics. According to BBC, one of the positive globalization’s impacts is the provision of awareness of events in far-away places of our planet. We all remember the UK is quickly informed of the threat of 2004 tsunami tidal wave. It allowed its government to react immediately by involving some help. I agree with the Guardian that without global cooperation part of the humanity wouldn’t cope “with waves topping 100 meters (330 ft), will be the neighbouring Canary Islands. Within a few hours, the west coast of Africa will be battered with similar-sized waves” (McGuire, 2004).
Another valuable positive outcome is the universities going global. It allows students around the world to share their knowledge, experience, and learn foreign languages faster. For instance, Monash University decided to try the effects of modernization on the own skin. This largest public institution in Australia coped with a large scale Asian expansion.
As UnderstandGlobalization informs, this giant launched affiliates in Malaysia (1998), South Africa (2001), and a research centre in Italy.
On the other hand, religion is something holy that cannot stay away from the impact of modernization. But it’s impossible to change the principles stated in the Holy Scriptures like Bible or Quran. This is the only barrier for some civilizations to join the process of globalization. If some goods Western nations produce are able to do harm to the representatives of other nations, the manufacturers should stop exporting such products or services to particular countries. For instance, even in Northern Africa, they do not eat pork. I don’t see the point of supplying this sort of meat over there.
To sum up, I should mention that I insist on a further process of globalization as I support technological and economic progress. And that is the only method of reaching business goals. On the other hand, I believe there should be a compromise which will define which frames have to be set in order to protect religions from the impact of modernization.